Some notable scholars have
advised that the world is facing the type social disorientation that
comes only once in a thousand years. And it comes with the threat of
globally diffuse violence and terrorism that seem already to have begun.

In reference to our domestic
social problems including public education, racial segregation, the drug
culture, random killing, and family decomposition, a former US budget
specialist, Richard Darman, advised that an honest reckoning of the cost
to America would be staggering (The New York Times, Feb. 9, 1997)

Hence, the news media and
public opinion polls advise, "The people sense a moral bankruptcy
in Washington" with a bickering inability in government to face
these deeper problems.

Similarly, the Brookings
Institute has warned Congress that our current military quadrennial
plans have failed to acknowledge the new global reality of diffuse
violence that threatens the world, and irresponsibly, is planning a
budget-breaking restructuring for a WWII mass-attack war with no such
possible enemy in sight.

In summary, top leadership,
in both our civilian or military government, is afraid even to discuss
this apparent decisive need for new thinking both at home and overseas.

Meanwhile, in many places
abroad, America's apparent failures, floundering, and inability to cope,
starting in Vietnam, and continuing in Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia, plus
Tailhook and Aberdeen, have started to alarm the world's peoples about
our leadership. They were counting on us for help in building a world of
peace with justice if, together, we could defeat communism. Now,
however, suddenly, they see us as self-acclaimed " mean-dog-masters”
interested only in our own wealth and safety even if it means
smart-bombing their innocent peasants while excusing their oppressive
leaders as in Iraq, Panama and even China.

Since this kind of apparent
moral-breakdown marked the decline of all previously leading
nation, the University of Tennessee is to be acclaimed for this
three-year study of values. Hence, in response to the invitation to
participate, I am submitting the first, fully unguarded, previously
confidential findings from the Cold War. Those forty years of
low-intensity, grassroots issues in the countries surrounding the
Communist block and in our little overseas Americas were exactly the
same as those that have now broken-out domestically as well as on a
world scale. Ten millions dollars worth of successful answers, there,
now should be equally effective for this new, almost identical set of
challenges.

The only catch is that the
method that was needed to succeed was quite new and therefore too
controversial for public discussion under the Cold War circumstances. No
longer.

Brief Background.
As a WWII veteran while teaching Economics and International Relations
at MIT, in the mid 1950s, I was invited overseas by the State Department
into that Cold-War situation. You may know or remember that
well-informed persons such a Henry Kissinger were predicting that the
future belonged to communism.

Why so? What was the exact
problem then?

In major part, it too was a
values-breakdown of the American culture under the dire new Cold- War
circumstances: Millions of Americans were being rushed abroad to help
hold back aggression into the Third-World countries on the borders of
the USSR and China.

The social problems that
then developed in and around our "Little Americas," as I
mentioned, were almost identical to our domestic problems now. There was
cultural-shock, massive vindictive crime against us, rich/poor
resentments, family breakdown, and the introduction of drugs. And, as
those Americans know who served in Asia, the sexual irresponsibility of
our troops in relations with vulnerable women did not start at Tailhook
or Aberdeen. Away from home, with money, amid countless young,
attractive, foreign, destitute women from large families in terrible
want, our men bought literally millions of village girls into
prostitution. Understand that this was bigger than the military. It was
a cultural thing that shocked even the Asian Communists, yet our
corrective efforts were opposed by a few of our own chaplains who said
they were Freudians protecting the psychic needs of the troops. Hence,
there was much sympathy even with the Communists against our alleged
moral devastation.

No Answers.
In that semi-lawless, boomtown atmosphere, my multifaceted job was to
promote cross-cultural efficiencies in both military and vital civilian
organizations, to stop violence, to avoid America's expulsion, and to
build grassroots attitudes that would prevent gradual ideological
demoralization for easy Communist insurgence.

After a couple of years of
hopeless failure, it was clear that nothing known in the social sciences
would work. Studies among the local nationals revealed that the human
relations efforts by both the State Department and the military were
making attitudes worse even when we were generous with material
assistance.

Values-Based Success.
Here is the key introductory fact for our purposes: When I finally gave
up on all official approaches, and moved "onto the economy"
and "into the field" with the semi- literate local masses and
our own enlisted families, the beginning of the solution was
forthcoming. It derived from taking answers from those common folk
themselves and then using them with the masses.

Its drastic nature,
intellectually, contained two facets: First, its base, the decisive
foundation for sudden stunning success, was "a method to activate
respect for human equality across the barriers of abject poverty and
military rank." Changing the grassroots feelings about status,
alone, actually overcame the worst barriers of wealth.

The second factor was the
follow-on factual discoveries that allowed our Americans to overcome
false negatives about the foreign peoples. This required massive
research and but only quick corrective education. Thinking now of Bosnia
and the Middle East, that education of "the people" gave us a
solid foundation peace that the flimsy words or treaties of leaders
could neither duplicate through an honorable effort nor upset for
selfish ends.

Holistic Education.
However, that moral values-base along with a closely tied holistic --
physical, artistic, and intellectual -- follow-on was so new, different,
and democratic that it was not acceptable, officially. Hence, in the
seven countries where we worked extensively, U.S. military commanders
could not allow the agitation of any public debate, but they soon
supported the quiet use of the program for its local Cold-War winning
effectiveness. This was true eventually even in Vietnam among the most
enlightened leaders (Admiral Zumwalt, General Krulak, General Walt, and
General Nickerson) who, too late, allowed me to try to turn that tragic
war into an effort to win the people. Three of them, in person, invited
this program into their commands on the basis of its successes all
across Asia. But we got in too late even to approach the masses of Army
troops before the fiasco was called to an end.

So, when years earlier in
the Cold War, I had kept the developing theory confidential, it turned
out to be a blessing. I was able to use it in Vietnam in the two most
enlightened people-to-people programs ever tried in combat. So even
though too late to pacify that entire tragedy, it saved many American
lives and Vietnamese too.

Nonetheless, that necessary
secrecy has left the program with a the credibility problem of being
unknown even in the military. I need to take a moment to off-set that
fact. But be sure to entertain these two assertions. What it took to win
these giant Cold-War struggles with our confused GIs and dropouts is,
(1) identical to what will be required now, domestically, to salvage our
young generations from this on-rushing new information age of obesity,
non-involvement, physical softness, cynicism and the class-divisive
hour-glass economy, and (2) what will be required to elevate our
military to a new world of mainly moral/physical peacemaking versus,
primarily, endless and needless killing.

Credibility

I'll list here the several
millions of dollars worth of programs that were financed by the
military, the Chrysler Missile Corporation, and schools. I'll add copies
of a few top-level commendations in the Appendix which reveal that this
all happened.

As you scan this list, try
to think what educational program you would need to solve these
problems. I want you to see that without some kind of a new, fast,
massive attitude-changing approach, at the grassroots, no program such
as this could exist. Moral values-based education contains a magic-like
peacemaking power never before suspected according to anything I ever
read in twelve years of college and twelve years more of college
teaching.

1. in southern Italy,,
down in the so-called Communist-infested Heel of the Boot, to
install the NATO missiles after that program had failed over
bad relations, (The moral-values worked there after the "big
money" answer had not only failed, but had also been angrily
rejected.)

2. in Turkey, to take
the missile-installation "into country" through customs
by solving the grassroots- relations difficulties (including " high
pride" Turkish pressures for U.S. expulsion). This allowed Chrysler
to finish that installation in half the allotted time (one year instead
of two). Turkish workers quit other higher paying U.S. contractors to
work with our " more attractive Americans."

3. in Korea, to stop
massive vindictive theft (so-called "slicky boy"
operations) that were destroying the UN's military communication system
(copper wire). The morality-based education is so strong that two
teachers re-educated 50,000 U.S./UN troops in only six weeks. American
attitudes moved up only slightly into statistical significance. Yet the
attitudes of their allied foreign troops, who had not been
addressed, went off the top of the charts. The vindictive
theft-problem then solved itself without the extra police- guards that
would have meant some killing.

4. in Okinawa, to
stop strikers at the gates over problems similar to recent ones that
resulted in our partial expulsion, (The Japanese officials, who observed
this problem-solving, offered to buy the program to use in all of Asia.
Humphrey declined.)

5. in Thailand, to
stop vindictive sabotage around SEATO bases, (The program
won top military commendations. (See Appendix #1.)

6. in Vietnam, to
stop internal troubles in two of the most daring combat
operations in U.S. history: the Marines' Combined Action Platoons
(where a few bold Marines stayed nights in the villages) and the Navy's
Riverines (who integrated Vietnamese sailors into their river-boat
crews), Admiral Zumwalt, later, recommended consideration of the program
for worldwide use.

7. in a USMC
race-relations program, worldwide, approved by Secretary of Navy
Chafee, and later commended by Secretary Warner, to stop racial
violence. This worked so well -- with more noticeable cross-racial
dating -- that Humphrey was forced to water-down the training. (He was
given the reason that Americans would not approve of Marines learning to
box, he advises.)

8. to educate so-called
"defiant uneducable" dropouts on the southern California/Mexican
border and Indian youth in Canada as practice for taking the
program into Africa -- the next anticipated major
ideological-warfare (win-the-people) arena. Both programs won "the
best" awards in both " education" and "
corrections" in the huge, multicultural San Diego County.

9. (Late in the Cold War)
rushed into Athens, Greece, to change a failing
"touch-feel" aspect of the Navy's Home-Port program -- by
providing in its place a moral-values-based and research-guided
diversity management solution. (The sensitivity trainers, themselves,
had succumbed to culture-shock even in Greece which is a relatively easy
culture for Americans.)

10. (Also late) rushed into La
Maddelena, Sardinia, to stop fighting and expulsion after the
stationing of a "special ship" to service other ships, with
classified missions, just off-shore.

Analysis

How could one explain such
new ideological warfare successes in general?

In answer, they were made
possible, first, through ideological acknowledgment of life's equality
feelings, second, through holistic (meaning interrelated mental,
physical, moral, and artistic) education that respects each individual's
basic developmental needs, and third, through holistic factual education
that provides general education in a world of overly specialized
ignorance.

Or that is, these
accomplishment suggest that, "the basics for adequate overall
education are not reading, writing, and arithmetic, but rather,
development of the general strong-body, sound-mind, and
solid-values education, plus good art and humor appreciation." The
so-called 3 Rs are only the basics for intellectual education. And our
concentration on intellectual education, has left us with this
inadequacy to provide strong moral/physical leadership in a generally
admitted dog-eat-dog values-free economy.

Second, for some academic
credibility, there is this: We came to the overall solution based on
only one practical test; what worked honorably for stopping cross-group
hostilities and violence. However, soon we got into the necessary
intermediate task of educating the so-called uneducables because they
were especially difficult. They were mainly teenage dropouts. Here
again, the same approach, with minor variations, was the only thing that
worked big time to give those dropouts and "pushouts" some
competence, confidence, happiness, and a sense of peaceful belonging.

The Psychology of Self.
Now, I have noticed in the 1997 March issue of the Harvard Magazine that
a similar holistic idea is being fostered in psychology -- a field that
I ascertain has been dedicated mainly to the study of the individual or
the so-called "self." But there too, now, as represented by
the new Harvard course of Ecopsych 101, by Drs. Sara and Lane Conn, they
are teaching that the individual is connected to others and in fact to
the entire ecosystem. This new emphasis in psychology will help give at
least academic acceptability for further experimentation with what we
found in the field. There is a secular spiritual connectedness between
all people.

Ideology is Not Enough.
Regarding viability of the new approach, after succeeding overseas
several times on a scale that could be called national, and then seeing
the results wither away within weeks after the crisis was solved and the
program stopped, my conviction is this: The world's philosophers must
recapture for philosophy its proper place on the throne of all
education. I know that this is possible because this program based on
only one philosophical value was able to do that, time after time, on a
major scale. It reduced threatening international catastrophes down to
mere incidents that never even made the papers. The biggest surprise was
that economic problems were solved but seldom even mentioned. The basic
problem is ideological -- a moral values problem. But then, we were
surprised to learn that we needed individual physical-development as
confidence-building reinforcement for the spiritual-like motivation. A
young philosophy student told me, "Don't be shocked; Socrates was
no bookworm; he was a warrior/stud, and Christ, Himself, was no
shrinking violet."

I suspect you are with me on
this goal for philosophy if we can agree on humankind's basic
"good" or on the proper goal of human life -- the most
rewarding purpose and direction. So let us go now to that fascinating
question. The so-called ten secrets consist of four findings that
make up the foundation of humankind's basic problem-solving
moral/physical values-package plus six or so vital supporting factors
(depending on how you divide them).

Cold-War studies, early-on,
among our comparatively wealthy, overseas Americans revealed, mainly,
complaints about the sights, sounds, smells, sanitation, and other
dangers associated with dire poverty. Those complaints were similar to,
but more vocal than, the attitudes of many suburban Americans,
currently, toward our ghettos and ghetto residents.

Summarizing thousands of
questionnaire-responses from a dozen Third-World countries, our overseas
Americans said of the foreign nationals:

"These people are
dumb, dirty, dishonest, lazy, unsanitary, immoral, cruel, crazy,
irresponsible, and sub-human. All they want from us Americans is to give
them more money or else for us to go home."

So, there was an
"ugly" problem all right on a international scale.
If it could not be stopped, it seemed to assure the loss of the
Cold War for both the U.S. and for democracy. A similar "
unattractive American" problem is now one of the major complaints
in our domestic relations. You can get shot in the streets over a minor
traffic incident. Seven bus drivers were stabbed or shot by passengers
in New York City last year.

Our values-based educational
program solved that massive Cold-War problem; it will now solve this
continuation of that moral-values breakdown, domestically and globally.

A Monumental
Misunderstanding, and Hope for Reconciliation.
I conducted massive studies in those Third-World countries, mentioned
earlier, as well as smaller studies in Egypt, Russia, Poland, and down
through Mexico, Central America, into Peru, and up into the Bolivian
high Andes. I asked mainly only one type question:

"What do you want
from us Americans? What should we do or stop doing to promote better
relations?"

The overwhelming answer was
always the same, even in Vietnam. It was not that we should give them
more money or else go home. It was always a whopping eighty percent or
so that said the same thing in various ways. Can you guess what it was
those people asked from us?

"Respect us as
equals."

The "1776
Equality-Value" Officially Rejected.
That startling request for "respect," rather than the
anticipated " Yankee, go home," obviously offered hope for
grassroots reconciliation. But when the studies, showing that surprising
request, were revealed to our American officials, overseas, they
flat-out denounced the idea of human equality, itself.

My bosses and fellow
officers in the State Department and U.S. Information Service lectured
me that,

"there is no such thing
as human equality; some persons are bigger; some smarter, some taller,
and some, just plane better,"

"equality is Communist,
and incompatible with our only real American value, freedom,"

and "equality was a
concept dreamed up by Jefferson and Washington to raise cannon- fodder
armies."

Finally, most persuasive,
was this order: If I did not tear up those studies on equality,
and never mention them again, I would be sent home.

That Values Breakdown.
That rejection of our 1776 founding-value by U.S. officials was laid on
me as an infallible pronouncement. And I recognized the embarrassing
deportation as inevitably forthcoming if I persisted.

So, I transferred my
contracts into the military and proceeded ever so carefully. First, I
flew back to Washington, D.C., and with the assistance of a Cabinet
Undersecretary, Dr. Robert McNeil, I briefed members of the National
Security Council and the Operations Coordination Board on my findings
and about my possibly taking-on the newly perceived ideological struggle
in the Cold War.

They seemed surprised but
open-minded and neutral about my findings and recommended that I brief
President Eisenhower. I declined, citing my rushed schedule for return
to the problems in the Med. I gambled that their knowledge of the
studies and their neutrality was support enough. I also knew that my
field-studies occasionally took me accidentally across unmarked borders
into Communist countries. I felt it was best that I not attract any
unnecessary political attention. And that worked-out well.

The Ideological Warfare
Situation. At that point, I knew
that if I could teach the equal life- value successfully among the
masses of Americans, that is, if I could activate respect among
those culture-shocked Americans toward the respect-hungry peasants, we
had a chance to win their strong support against the Communists whose
dictatorships they already distrusted. The question was, "How does
one teach " equal respect for the untouchables" so that it
will take hold again as it did in 1776 among those earlier common-folk
Americans?" I recognized that whether Jefferson was sincere or not
made no difference. I had seen again that the concept strikes a cord
down in the guts of the common folk so strongly that they seemed willing
to kill and die for its support; that was meaning-enough, I figured.

I did not need to win over
the comparatively few military officers or other college educated. What
we needed was a turnaround among those hundreds of thousands of
hard-talking GIs who really did the mixing with the people. In
Washington, I had solved that access problem. I had arranged to get the
podium in front of the enlisted personnel with the officers simply
present in apparent support. This was made possible by making it a
research project.

The Academic Knowledge
for Teaching Human Equality Effectively

The State of that Basic
Founding-Value -- Equality.
"We take these truths to be self-evident; that all people are
created equal." What does that mean? Can it be taught to reduce the
superiority complexes called elitism, racism, sexism, and ugly
Americanism that affect every human relationship on earth every second?
I consulted my most brilliant, former associates from the great
universities where I had taught or attended, including Harvard Law, MIT,
and The Fletcher School of Diplomacy. I asked only one question:

" How does one
teach respect for human equality more effectively?

Responses were forthcoming.
They included details on how to teach " equality under the
law" and " equality of opportunity." Those familiar ideas
brought cat-calls as alleged fallacious "cop- outs" from both
the GIs and foreign nationals in my large orientation audiences.

Back Again to the Common
Folk. In desperation, I started
spending much time with enlisted hunt-clubs on long hunting trips into
the back country of Asia Minor, actually to conduct more
attitude-studies and related culture-studies. It was on one of those
trips out into eastern Turkey that I was given the first
ideological-breakthrough, or secret, to the new Cold-War victory -- that
is, a secret to teaching "other-respecting" morality
effectively.

" Don't Tread on
Us"
The Wild-Boar Hunting Story

One day on a wild-boar
hunting trip, far out on the Anatolian Plateau, a group of U.S. airmen
started laughing about a small group of Turkish or Kurdish peasants.
The latter had gathered out behind our truck in which a dozen or so of
us hunters were seated up in the bed of the truck on the sideboard
bench-seats. The peasants were trying to get hired as bush-beaters.
They were, indeed, a motley sight in their abject destitution
including a child with a huge sore on her face and flies a- pestering.

"Look at them,"
said one of the young Americans. "They have nothing to live for;
they might just as well be dead."

An old tobacco-chewing,
Tennessee sergeant, after a huge disgusting, splattering spit,
challenged the airman with words that stopped the group's mockery:
"If you really think they don't value their lives as much as you
do yours, let me see you take your hunting knife & try kill one.
Try one of them carrying those corn knives. Or try to kill one of
their children."

The embarrassed airman
actually choked while trying to take back his words.

The sergeant, satisfied,
explained his challenge: "I don't know either what makes 'em
value their lives so much. Maybe it's them women or maybe it's them
kids. But whatever it is, I seen 'em in combat & I seen 'em in the
Korean prison camps. And they hung in there after a lot of Americans
was yelling quit. So while we are making fun of them up here in this
truck, they are looking back at us & saying, 'Laugh you bastards
in your fancy clothes. But we don't care how sweet you smell or where
you come from. We still value our lives & the lives of our loved
ones just as much as you do yours. And if you don't give us that, you
have got to go, or else someday we will put bombs in your messkits.'
"

Every previously obvious
Ugly American on the truck seemed to chime into agreement with him.
That was the fact that shocked me.

I asked the sergeant how
we could prove our respect for their equality even if we felt it.

He answered easily:
"Well Mister, you have got to be able to jump down there into
that sheep manure in them fancy boots, and go over there into that
village of mud huts, and walk down them nary streets, and as you walk
past the dirtiest, stinkinist peasant, you got to be able to look him
in the face and make him know just with your eyes that you know
that he is a man who hurts like we do, and hopes like we do, and wants
for his kids just like we do. That's how you got to be able to do it.
There ain't no other way. If we kaint do that, we lose."

Then Compared to Now.
Frankly, I think the guidelines from that old sergeant's wisdom, mainly,
won that Cold War for us, or at least avoided the predicted loss.
Without him, I think Professor Kissinger probably had it right. We were
failing completely in the installation of the preventive
"fast-strike" missiles in the Mediterranean. There was serious
whispering about kicking us out of several countries (as has now
happened in the Philippines, Spain, and to a degree, Okinawa). Without
hundreds of thousands of our ugly Americans being turned around,
rapidly, to some attractiveness, much more serious sabotage against us,
if not Vietnam-type insurgency, was a good bet. The situation was
considerably worse than our current domestic fears of racial strife,
militia street wars, and terrorism.

Effectiveness of the
Equality Concept

Here is the monumental fact
about that equality concept and the Turkish Hunting story: From 1955
into the mid 1970s, I told that story to probably a million overseas
Americans. My teaching assistants told it to as many more. I heard one
of my young GI assistants in Korea say this: "Anytime any one on my
team-members does not get a standing ovation from that equality story,
he feels like he has failed in his assignment."

Pause for a moment and think
about the fifteen-year, geographic pathway of that story's ideological
warlike success across Eurasia -- from Sardinia, through southern Italy,
into Greece and Turkey, up to Korea, down through Okinawa, in Thailand
and finally into life-saving work in Vietnam. The concept may not seem
like much to us since we are so familiar with it almost as an old cliché.
Nonetheless, when there is a known way to apply its meaning, like
medicine, to a deeply felt conflict, it has an attitude-changing power
of unrivaled effectiveness. It revealed the same power that it carried
to shock the world in 1776. That 1776 performance is why the Declaration
of Independence is considered by many to be the greatest secular
document ever written in all of world history. According to astonishing
effectiveness in the Cold War, the clout that it delivered in 1776 was
no passing fad.

THE DEEPER VALUE

By your guess, why does that
equality concept when communicated with emotional impact possess that
kind of magic-like power?

In answer, we learned
through in-depth attitude studies that in the minds of the common folk, the
equality-concept represents the life-value, life itself. That is, it
represents to them life versus death.

And they are right. That is
clear in the dictatorial societies. If you can break peoples feelings of
equality, it seems to make them sick and weak -- easier to control,
easier to kill without their fighting back.

Backed only by a few (but of
decisive importance) corrective cultural facts, reactivating that
concept allowed us to salvage the installation of that first NATO
missile project in the volatile Mediterranean after it had broken down
completely. Most of the 300 highly paid missile-workers had become
sputtering mad from culture-shock. Over 90% -- with families -- had
submitted their resignations and were going home. And the local Italians
were delighted that they were going. This was in southern Italy, as my
skimpy office records above reminded me with a shiver -- down in the
so-called Communist-infested Heel of the Boot.

The "Magic
Factor." Here was the point
of decisive importance for both then and now: The corrective
turnaround to mutual friendliness took only a few weeks. Soon, many
of those Americans, including the wives, were getting further into the
Italian culture than I was. Despite the operational evidence, I still
could not believe that the equality story was so powerful. I honestly
kept my fingers crossed and almost literally kept looking around back
over my shoulders trying to see if maybe something else was causing the
change. Our lessons were so brief; conducted exclusively orally, mostly
through unpaid opinion leaders, and almost informally with only an
occasional, special, crisis-oriented presentations from the podium.

But the local
Chrysler-Missile directors showed no doubt about the cause and effect.
Despite the fact that I was a political scientist, with virtually no
math, I was made the temporary director in place of a "chief
engineer" for six weeks. The assignment was to lead the introducing
of the missile operation into the country of the super-proud Turks, a
vital NATO headquarters on the edge of communism.

And true to the previous
ideological magic in Italy, we finished that job in half the
professionally estimated time -- one year instead of two -- with the
savings of more than a million dollars a day, I was told.

What made those brief
morality-based lessons so powerful?

Clearly, on that chancy
foreign scene, in the place of fear and unhappiness, those materials
inspired culture-crossing courage and self-satisfaction. They raised the
sense of responsibility and the work ethic through the entire
multi-cultural organizations. How different did this make the daily
visible, behavior patterns of the Americans and their foreign
counterparts?

You had to have a keen eye
to pick it up. The main changes were inside the brain, and good or bad,
for most, they were concealed by social pretense. However, work
efficiencies and other behavioral measures were decisive -- the
difference between close-down failure and record-setting successes.

That Equal-Life Value and
the Other Moral Values

In our first three massive
programs, we could find no other value, nor anything else, that was
teachable in this way: effective, fast and en masse. Noticeably,
however, this equality concept triggered the activation of the other
more familiar secular moral values such as kindness, empathy,
responsibility, duty, courage, et cetera. Yet, we could not teach those
values themselves, standing alone. Why?

"Why?" we kept
asking. Why did these angry, ugly Americans change mainly from that
brief equality story? And why did the attitudes-changes and
behavior-changes -- which were almost imperceptible to my observations
-- please the local, host nationals so decisively? This was after
everything else, including patriotic appeals and big (huge) money offers
had actually made the Americans more angry, why did this human equality
message work?

Why did our American common
folk, both military and civilian, respond so favorably to an appeal to
respect the equality of the lowly, previously denigrated peasants in
every country? Shortly before, those same Americans had denounced both
the peasants and the equality concept, itself, when taught
intellectually?

An Embarrassing Discovery

Meaningful, now, in our
search for a new domestic philosophy, are these facts: Eventually, with
better research, we found that the " empathy" stimulated
toward the peasants by that equal-life- value story was only the
second half of the answer why it was so effective toward that end.
We found that there was something else working that was an equally
strong, or possibly slightly stronger, phenomenon. That moving story
told from an official podium, with high-ranking officials right down
front listening and approving, also satisfied a deeply frustrated
general desire in the laboring men and in the enlisted military
personnel that did not involve the foreign peoples at all. Can you guess
what that was?

Under the high-pressure
Cold-War circumstances, the laborers and enlisted men saw the speech as
a serious declaration of respect for their own equality from us
higher ranking Americans. One sergeant branded that realization into
my brain with this comment: "I would like to go back and blow-up my
entire hometown for the way it treated my parents."

Summary

Respect for the "equal
life-value" can be activated between disrespectful and hostile
groups to raise working efficiencies and stop violence,

1. when it is taught
orally, and

2. when taught anecdotally
(rather than intellectually), but

3. to achieve this success
on a mass scale, it is helpful if this respect is activated
persuasively down to persons from their social-power superiors. Then,
those newly respected persons give it freely to those below them in
the social-power hierarchy. So it is a demanding leadership problem as
well as an educational one.

Economic Exploitation.
With disrespect comes economic exploitation. And in the streets, that
economic exploitation was the surface complaint, not the deeper
infuriating disrespect that was admitted between clinched teeth in
private interviews. Being powerless to change those economic inequities,
I did not mention them. Yet, that professed hostility over economics,
mainly, took care of itself after the respect issue was solved. Some
economic improvements were forthcoming as mere details.

Interlude

Despite the basic necessity
of the moral -- equal life-respect -- value for stopping violence
temporarily, other morality-reinforcing (mental, physical, and
artistic) factors are indispensable for permanent improvement. However,
in our strongly compartmentalized educational orientation, I have found
that such holistic education is virtually impossible to introduce. The
Cold-War secrecy made it possible in the overseas programs. The best way
to overcome, or get by, that same institutional preclusion, now, is
through experimental programs. Comparative successes can be measured.

Most controversial
previously, though, and the Cold-War feature that demanded the most
secrecy, was the process for teaching morality in a way that
activates it. I have touched on it above. But it needs to be spelled
out.